Local Government

Summary

Miss C owns a property in a block of four. Some of the other properties in the block were believed to be owned by the council. Miss C complained that work undertaken on her property was not in line with the agreed mandate and that the council failed to provide her with appropriate information in relation to the works.

The council's Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners procedure provides information on the steps to be followed when a repair has been identified as shared with the owner of a private property. The council contacted all owners in Miss C's block giving a quote to paint the exterior of the property. The letter said that it was a notification of shared repair, and it enclosed a mandate which, when signed, indicated agreement to the council taking the lead on the repair. The council ultimately painted the exterior of Miss C's property, but none of the others in her block as the other occupiers had not agreed to the work being carried out. Miss C complained to the council that she only agreed to the work being carried out because she understood that all of the properties in the block were going to be painted. She said that if she had been made aware that the work was not going to be carried out on the whole block, she would not have signed the mandate, and that at no time had she agreed to being the only property to be painted.

The council said that the mandate signed by Miss C was not conditional on the agreement of other owners in the block. We found that the work carried out was not in line with the original mandate, as the original mandate had confirmed Miss C's agreement to shared repairs being carried out. We considered that, when it became clear that the other owners were not going ahead with the work, the council should have checked whether Miss C still wanted to go ahead. During the course of our investigation, it became clear that in fact none of the properties in Miss C's block were owned by the council. Therefore, the council were not in a position to invoke their Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners Procedure. We considered that there had been maladministration at every step in the process, and we upheld both of Miss C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for the work carried out on her property not having been in line with the agreed mandate, ensuring that the apology meets the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise for failing to provide Miss C with appropriate information in relation to the works, ensuring that the apology meets the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise for unreasonably following their Shared Repairs – Mutual Owners Procedure in relation to repairs at Miss C's block, despite not owning any properties in the block. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Cancel the invoice for the works, or reimburse Miss C for any sums paid in relation to the work carried out at her property.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The Tenement Management Scheme should be followed appropriately, ensuring that the Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners procedure is not unreasonably followed.
• The Shared Repairs - Mutual Owners Procedure and associated letters should be reviewed, and revised in the event that this is necessary.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C applied to be kinship carers for a child related to them. A kinship care assessment was produced by the social work department and it recommended that Mr and Mrs C should not be approved as kinship carers. Mr and Mrs C complained that the content of the report and the recommendation made was unreasonable. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker who highlighted that the term 'person of concern' had been used to describe Mrs C within the document and that this was unreasonable. The council acknowledged this was unreasonable as it was not a term they would normally use. While there was issues with precise wording, we found that the information included in the document and the recommendation made was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the smell coming from local industrial premises. After monitoring the situation, the council identified a statutory nuisance and issued an abatement notice to the owners of the company concerned. The company did not meet their original compliance date, however, a couple of months later the council confirmed that the problem of odour had been satisfactorily addressed and that as no recent complaints had been made, the company had complied with the notice.

Mr C disagreed that the odour had been addressed and continued to make complaints. He complained to the council about their failure to deal reasonably with his concerns. The council felt that no statutory nuisance remained and that no further complaints had been made. Mr C complained to us that he was unhappy with the council's reply to his complaint and that it contained incorrect information.

We took independent advice from a chartered environmental health officer. We found that the council had taken reasonable action in responding to Mr C's complaints by carrying out full investigations, issuing the correct notices, monitoring the action taken and keeping Mr C updated on the process. While the council subsequently took the view that the statutory nuisance had been remedied, Mr C continued to complain. However, assessment after Mr C's further complaints led the council to confirm that the level of odour was acceptable. Therefore, we did not find the council's response to Mr C's complaint to be unreasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, in writing to him, the council had said that no further complaints were made after they confirmed the nuisance had abated. This was incorrect in that Mr C maintained his complaints. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for providing him with incorrect information. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) who felt that she had been financially disadvantaged by delays in the council completing a kinship carer assessment. Miss A was undergoing assessment to be a kinship carer but was looking after the children while the assessment was ongoing. Miss A received payments from the council but believed some of these were calculated incorrectly. Specifically, she felt that one-off payments made prior to the referral for kinship care being made should not have been included in the calculation of financial support. The council acknowledged that there had been delays in the completing of the kinship care assessment but did not feel that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged during the process. Miss A was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council was correct to include some of the one-off payments when calculating the financial support. However, we noted that the kinship assessment was delayed by a number of weeks. This meant that Miss A did not receive her kinship carer allowance as early as she would have if the assessment was completed on time. Therefore, we considered that Miss A had been financially disadvantaged due to the council's delay and upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Pay Miss A the outstanding amount caused by the delay in completing a kinship care assessment.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should amend their kinship care policy to clearly reflect the legislation.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C own a hotel in a conservation area. They applied to the council for a grant to replace the windows on the front of the hotel, and were awarded the full grant. They required planning permission to replace the windows, but had problems getting through the registration process. Mr and Mrs C felt that the information they were submitting was adequate, and felt frustrated with what they considered to be the council's lack of clarity regarding the information required. In the meantime, the hotel building was deteriorating, which had an impact on their business and the health and safety of their family who were living there. The council's position was that Mr and Mrs C had continually submitted inadequate planning applications which were invalid. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's handling of their planning application was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not find any reasonable basis to question or challenge the council's reasoning and conclusions. We were satisfied that the council replied promptly, constructively and appropriately at all times. We considered that the council had made it clear what supporting documentation was required, and what essential items were missing, for the planning applications to be deemed valid for processing and determination. We found that the council were not in breach of any procedures or legislation, and did not cause any delays in the handling of the applications. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A), who required personal care in her home, that the council had unreasonably charged Mrs A for personal care. Following discussions with us, the council accepted that personal care for individuals over the age of 65 years was a non-chargeable service and they should not have charged Mrs A for providing her with this service. They agreed to reimburse the full free personal care contribution claimed by Mrs A. The council also apologised for the time it had taken to resolve this matter and said that a change to their charging policy would now be applied to other persons who were subject to financial assessment for non-chargeable personal care before the charging policy was revised. As this was a satisfactory outcome for Mr C, we closed the case.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of an elderly relative (Mrs A) that the council unreasonably charged her for a replacement front door after she left her council tenancy, and about the council's response to his complaint.

Mrs A changed the front door for one of her own preference several years ago. Upon leaving the tenancy, the council did a premises check. A year after leaving the tenancy, Mrs A was sent an invoice for a replacement front door stating that the door was damaged. Mr C queried this on Mrs A's behalf, stating that this was the first time they had been informed of any damage. Mrs A received a final demand for payment from a debt recovery agency working at the council's request.

We found that the council had no evidence of the inspection carried out before Mrs A left her tenancy, to show that they noticed and recorded the door as needing replaced, and informed Mrs A of this. Since Mrs A was a council tenant for over 30 years, and because of her age and state of health, the responsibility should have been on the council to remind Mrs A, at the time of the inspection, of her obligation to replace the door. There was no evidence that the council did this, or that they gave Mrs A the chance to replace the door before they charged her. The council could also have used their discretion not to charge Mrs A for the door, given her age and health. The council did not properly explain their discretion to Mr C, and gave him and us contradictory and conflicting information about it. The council said that they considered their discretion in Mrs A's case, but provided no evidence of this. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that a council officer did not make notes of phone calls with Mr C, and was unable to recall what was said when we asked. It was not clear which process the council used to deal with Mr C's complaint. In addition, we found that the council did not respond to key points of Mr C's complaint, and did not respond at all to his final email. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Cancel the invoice to Mrs A for the door and instruct the debt recovery agency to take no further action.
• Apologise to Mrs A for unreasonably charging her for a replacement front door. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable handling of his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Acknowledge that they had the power/discretion to consider waiving the charge.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Housing staff should make a note of phone calls querying invoices, and retain evidence that they told the caller to contact the repair team with details of the dispute, so that the issues can be investigated.
• Housing staff should make a record of their consideration of such cases, including requests for discretion to be applied, and the rationale for the conclusion(s) reached.
• Housing staff should advise tenants, or their representatives, how to ask for the application of discretion for elderly and infirm people, advise what evidence is needed to support any such claim, and explain how their request will be considered.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Housing staff should advise tenants, or their representatives, under which procedure their dissatisfaction is being handled.
• Housing staff should respond to all key points of a complaint.
• Housing staff should not ignore emails, but should provide an appropriate response.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council as her bins were not being collected as required. Ms C was part of an assisted take out service due to her ill health but her bins were not always being lifted or, when they were, they were not returned to the correct place. Ms C made numerous complaints about this but believed that the situation noticeably worsened when she witnessed her neighbour speaking with a member of staff who, following the conversation, did not empty Ms C's bin. She was of the view that her neighbour was influencing staff not to empty her bins as part of a long running dispute. The council's response was to advise Ms C that she needed to leave her bins within the boundary of her property, and not place them on the shared driveway, as this was confusing for staff. Ms C remained unhappy with the council's position and brought her complaint to us.

Ms C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable bin collection service and that their response to her complaint was unreasonable. We investigated information provided by both parties and advised Ms C we would not be investigating her neighbour's involvement as records from the council showed that Ms C had been experiencing this problem long before the incident with her neighbour. The records from the council showed a clear pattern of repeated failings. We upheld Ms C's complaint and asked the council to apologise to her for continually failing to empty her bins. We also noted the council had introduced a number of new processes to increase accountability for staff and they hoped this would see an improvement in service provision. We asked the council to evidence the impact of the changes they had made.

Regarding the council's response to Ms C's complaint, we found that the response was inadequate as it appeared to suggest Ms C was to blame for her bins not being emptied. We also found that the changes that the council told us they had implemented to improve the service were not referred to in their complaints response. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for repeated failings when collecting her bins and for the poor content of the response to her complaint.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's response to her reports of anti-social behaviour by her upstairs neighbour. The complaints largely concerned the noise caused by her neighbour's children and rubbish being left in communal areas. She did not consider the council's response or the actions they carried out to be adequate. The council carried out a number of actions to try to manage Miss C's neigbour’s behaviour and mitigate any noise transference between properties. However, Miss C did not consider these actions to go far enough and ended up moving home.

After reviewing the council's records and their anti-social behaviour policy, we concluded that the actions taken were reasonable and appropriate. We acknowledged the fact that some of the actions taken were not successful but emphasised that this, in itself, is not an indication of maladministration or service failure. We also considered that the council kept Miss C involved, responded appropriately to her concerns and provided explanations for why they were not considering other approaches. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council as they were unhappy with the way their child (child A) was dealt with when they suffered a head injury at their primary school. The head injury occurred when child A fell during playtime. Following the injury they were confused, distressed, and were suffering from loss of memory. Mr and Mrs C felt that an ambulance should have been called immediately. Instead, the school observed child A for a short time, before calling Mr and Mrs C and asking them to pick child A up and take them to the GP. This meant that there was a period of around 45 minutes from the injury occurring to them attending to pick up their child. Mr and Mrs C complained that the relevant council procedure was not appropriately followed when the school were dealing with child A's head injury. Mr and Mrs C were also dissatisfied with the standard of the council's complaints handling.

The council provided us with a copy of their Accidents to Pupils procedure, which instructed staff on when emergency medical assistance should be sought for head injuries, as well as providing more general guidance about how injured children should be transported to hospital if medical treatment not needing an ambulance was required. The procedure said that an ambulance should be called immediately where: the child was unconscious for any length of time; the child was vomiting frequently; neck pain was associated with the injury; or where the child's condition was 'giving cause for concern'. It appeared clear from the council's records that staff were concerned by child A's condition. This is why staff requested the child was collected and taken to their GP. However, the procedure required that they should have called an ambulance or, if they did not consider their condition serious enough to warrant emergency transport, they should have arranged for them to be transported directly to hospital by taxi or a member of staff's personal vehicle. Instead, they attempted to call Mr and Mrs C, resulting in the delay of around 45 minutes before they could collect their child and seek medical attention for them. We upheld the first complaint.

Further to this, we did not consider that the council's Accidents to Pupils procedure was sufficiently detailed for use by non-medical staff. We took independent advice from a GP adviser and we were advised that child A's condition should have been a cause for concern. The adviser's recommendation would have been that an ambulance was called. However, it is not reasonable to expect school staff to have detailed knowledge of complex medical issues, which is why it is important that the council's procedures are robust and give clear guidance that is easily understood. The adviser suggested that the school should liaise with NHS 24 to review the Accidents to Pupils procedure to ensure that it is both manageable for their staff and clinically sound.

We considered that the council's complaints handling had been unreasonable. In particular, we felt that a reasonable investigation should have highlighted that the school's failure to arrange direct transport to hospital was in clear contravention of the Accidents to Pupils procedure. As such, we also upheld the second complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to follow the Accidents to Pupils procedure, for the delay this caused in child A receiving medical attention and for failing to identify this as part of their complaints investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should liaise with NHS 24 to review the Accidents to Pupils procedure.
• All relevant staff should be aware of the Accidents to Pupils procedure and ensure it is followed when a pupil is injured.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.